Adventures in Criticism eBook

The two excuses produced by Mr. Eason do not agree
very well together. The first gives us to understand
that, in Mr. Eason’s opinion, ordinary moral
principles cannot be applied to persons of royal blood.
The second gives us to understand that though, in Mr.
Eason’s opinion, ordinary moral principles can
be applied to princes, the application would involve
more risk than Mr. Eason cares to undertake. Each
of his excuses, taken apart, is intelligible enough.
Taken together they can hardly be called consistent.
But the effects of royal and semi-royal splendor upon
the moral eyesight are well known, and need not be
dwelt on here. After all, what concerns us is
not Mr. Eason’s attitude towards Prince Francis
of Teck, but Mr. Eason’s attitude towards the
reading public. And in this respect, from one
point of view—­which happens to be his own—­Mr.
Eason’s attitude seems to me irreproachable.
He is clearly alive to his responsibility, and is
honestly concerned that the goods he purveys to the
public shall be goods of which his conscience approves.
Here is no grocer who sands his sugar before hurrying
to family prayer. Here is a man who carries his
religion into his business, and stakes his honor on
the purity of his wares. I think it would be
wrong in the extreme to deride Mr. Eason’s action
in the matter of The Woman Who Did and Mr. Stead’s
review. He is doing his best, as Mr. Stead cheerfully
allows.

The reasonable Objection to Bookstall Censorship.

But, as I said above, he is doing his best under circumstances
he imperfectly understands—­and, let me
add here, in a position which is unfair to him.
That Mr. Eason imperfectly understands his position
will be plain (I think) to anyone who studies his reply
to Mr. Stead. But let me make the point clear;
for it is the crucial point in the discussion of the
modern Bookstall Censorship. A great deal may
be said against setting up a censorship of literature.
A great deal may be said in favor of a censorship.
But if a censorship there must be, the censor should
be deliberately chosen for his office, and, in exercising
his power, should be directly responsible to the public
conscience. If a censorship there must be, let
the community choose a man whose qualifications have
been weighed, a man in whose judgment it decides that
it can rely. But that Tom or Dick or Harry, or
Tom Dick Harry & Co. (Limited), by the process of
collaring a commercial monopoly from the railway companies,
should be exalted into the supreme arbiters of what
men or women may or may not be allowed to read—­this
surely is unjustifiable by any argument? Mr. Eason
may on the whole be doing more good than harm.
He is plainly a very well-meaning man of business.
If he knows a good book from a bad—­and
the public has no reason to suppose that he does—­I
can very well believe that when his moral and literary
judgment came into conflict with his business interests,
he would sacrifice his business interests. But